ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
General practitioners' awareness, use, and perceptions of social prescribing in Austria.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Social prescribing (SP) is increasingly recognized as an approach to address patients' nonmedical needs in primary care, yet evidence on general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives in Austria is limited. This study explored GPs' familiarity with SP, its current use, and perceptions of implementation and impact. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from June to October 2024 among 3,849 Austrian GPs. The questionnaire assessed familiarity with and use of SP, perceptions on implementation, and perceived impact on patient care. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: A total of 160 GPs responded (4.2%). Although 71.3% were initially unfamiliar with the term SP, more than half reported using some form of it, mainly through informal referrals such as signposting. No associations were found between SP use and GP characteristics. While only 37.5% felt able to adequately address patients' social needs, 96.3% expressed willingness to adopt SP in their practice. Key barriers included insufficient reimbursement and funding as well as limited referral structures and workforce capacity. Overall, SP was viewed as a valuable approach, particularly for addressing loneliness and mental health issues. Conclusion: Despite limited familiarity with the formal concept, elements of SP are already embedded in routine practice among Austrian GPs. There is strong interest in adopting more structured SP pathways, particularly with support from link workers, but implementation is hindered by gaps in awareness, referral options, and infrastructure. Strengthening training, service availability, and system-level support will be essential for effective and sustainable integration of SP into primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.